Kentucky Bar Association Continuing Legal Education Handbook Are Intended to Provide Current and Accurate Information About the Subject Matter Covered

FEATURE CLE POLITICS FROM THE TOP AND THE INSIDE

Sponsor: Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC CLE Credit: 1.0 Wednesday, May 11, 2016 1:15 p.m. - 2:15 p.m. Hall 1AB Kentucky International Convention Center Louisville, Kentucky

A NOTE CONCERNING THE PROGRAM MATERIALS

The materials included in this Kentucky Bar Association Continuing Legal Education handbook are intended to provide current and accurate information about the subject matter covered. No representation or warranty is made concerning the application of the legal or other principles discussed by the instructors to any specific fact situation, nor is any prediction made concerning how any particular judge or jury will interpret or apply such principles. The proper interpretation or application of the principles discussed is a matter for the considered judgment of the individual legal practitioner. The faculty and staff of this Kentucky Bar Association CLE program disclaim liability therefore. Attorneys using these materials, or information otherwise conveyed during the program, in dealing with a specific legal matter have a duty to research original and current sources of authority.

Printed by: Evolution Creative Solutions 7107 Shona Drive Cincinnati, Ohio 45237

Kentucky Bar Association TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Presenter ...... i

A Trump-Inspired Hate Crime in Boston ...... 1

Bush Aligned Lawyer: Donald Trump's Camp is Breaking Federal Law ...... 3

Riskiest Political Act of 2016? Protesting at Rallies for Donald Trump ...... 5

Here is Why Donald Trump Might Have Broken the Law ...... 9

How 2016ers Are Breaking the Law and Getting Away with It ...... 11

Bernie Sanders Allegedly Broke Federal Election Law, Used Foreign Staffers in Several States ...... 13

THE PRESENTER

Howard Fineman The Huffington Post Washington, DC

HOWARD FINEMAN is Global Editorial Director of The Huffington Post, an analyst for NBC News and MSNBC, and author of a best-selling book of political history, The Thirteen American Arguments. He is a leader of a team that has grown Huff Post into one of the world's largest news sites with 14 editions worldwide and more than 200 million unique visitors a month. He appears on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Morning Joe and other MSNBC shows and on NBC's Today. Before joining Huff Post he was chief political correspondent, senior editor and deputy Washington Bureau chief of Newsweek.

During the course of his award-winning career, Mr. Fineman has interviewed every president and major presidential candidate since 1988, as well as figures in business and entertainment such as Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Jay Leno and Glenn Beck.

He has been awarded numerous professional honors including National Magazine, American Bar Association and Sigma Delta Chi (journalism fraternity) awards, the Alumni Award from the Columbia Journalism School; and an honorary doctorate in 2011 from his college alma mater, Colgate University. In May 2013, the University of Louisville, where he attended law school while working as a newspaper reporter, awarded him an honorary doctorate.

Mr. Fineman has lectured at more than forty colleges and universities and in 2010 gave a series of lectures at the University of Pennsylvania's Kelly Writers House and Annenberg School for Communication. He has appeared on virtually every major news show, from Face the Nation and Good Morning America to Washington Week in Review to The Daily Show with John Stewart and The Colbert Report.

Mr. Fineman joined The Huffington Post in September 2010 as political editor and was named editorial director of a newly created Huff Post Media Group after the company's merger with AOL in March 2011. He began his career at The Courier Journal, where his coverage of the United Mine Workers' record 111-day strike was a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize in national reporting. He also covered local and state politics and the Kentucky legislature, as well as energy and environmental issues.

Mr. Fineman has won several awards to travel and report worldwide, including Watson and Pulitzer traveling fellowships to Europe and the Middle East and a Committee of 100 program award to interview leaders in government, business and the arts in China.

ii A TRUMP-INSPIRED HATE CRIME IN BOSTON One of two men who allegedly beat a homeless Hispanic man cited the Republican presidential candidate's criticism of immigrants as a motivation. Latino leaders aren't surprised. Russell Berman Aug 20, 2015 Reprinted from The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/a-trump-inspired- hate-crime-in-boston/401906/, last visited April 4, 2016.

The impact of Donald Trump's anti-immigrant broadsides appears to have veered dangerously far off the presidential campaign trail.

Police in Boston say that one of two brothers who allegedly beat a homeless Hispanic man cited Trump's message on immigration as a motivation for their attack. "Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported," Scott Leader, 38, told officers, according to a police report cited by The Boston Globe.

Leader and his brother, Steve, were arrested and charged with multiple assault charges after police said they urinated on and then assaulted a 58-year-old homeless man they found sleeping outside a T-station as they walked home from a Red Sox game. They allegedly beat him with a metal pole, breaking his nose and causing other injuries. According to the Globe, Scott Leader told police it was OK to assault the man because he was Hispanic and homeless. Both men, who have extensive criminal records, pleaded not guilty and said the homeless man started the confrontation.

Officials in Boston immediately denounced the attack. But Trump, who has made no apology for suggesting some Mexican immigrants were "rapists" and calling for their mass deportation, appeared to brush off the incident when he was asked about it while campaigning Wednesday in New Hampshire. "I think that would be a shame," he said, according to The Boston Herald, in reference to the report. He said he hadn't heard about the incident but then defended his most ardent supporters as "passionate."

I will say, the people that are following me are very passionate. They love this country. They want this country to be great again. But they are very passionate. I will say that.

For Latino leaders who repeatedly denounced Trump's rhetoric against undocumented immigrants, the most disturbing part of the attack in Boston was how unsurprising it was. "It's a pattern that we have seen over the last decade in the nation with enforcement only policies and this anti-immigrant rhetoric," said Hector Sanchez, the chairman of the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, in a phone interview, "I was not surprised."

Sanchez said he has repeatedly warned that Trump's statements, which have been laughed off as clownish in some quarters, are taken far more seriously in the Latino community. "When Trump is having this kind of anti-Latino and anti-immigrant language, he's not only a clown talking in general, his language has a direct impact in the quality of life of Latinos," he said. Sanchez said he believed that a 50 percent rise in hate crimes against Hispanics over the last five years is "directly correlated" to anti-immigrant rhetoric from conservatives. Before Trump's emergence in the last few months,

1 inflammatory statements from Republican members of Congress like Steve King and Louie Gohmert made national headlines.

Frank Sharry, the executive director of America's Voice, called Trump's response to the attack "morally bankrupt."

This pattern of hateful rhetoric has officially passed the of[sic] point of extremist words and has turned into alarming action. This is more than just bad politics. When political debate encourages an atmosphere where hateful actions and hurtful rhetoric get mainstreamed, it's bad for the country.

Yet with Trump's rivals in the Republican field responding to his rise by running to the right on immigration, there seems to be little that Latino leaders can do beside denounce the party and promise retribution at the polls next year. "Unfortunately, a lot of those extremist views are now reflective of the Republican Party," Sanchez said. Will the outrage of the hate-fueled attack in Boston prompt the GOP to take on Trump more directly? Perhaps. But if Trump's establishment-be-damned campaign strategy is a guide, it might not do much good.

2 BUSH-ALIGNED LAWYER: DONALD TRUMP'S CAMP IS BREAKING FEDERAL LAW Fredreka Schouten, January 13, 2016 6:07 p.m. EST Reprinted from USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/01/13/ bush-aligned-lawyer-donald-trumps-camp-breaking-federal-election-law/78756404/, last visited April 7, 2016

The legal mind behind Jeb Bush's super PAC fired another shot against Donald Trump on Wednesday, lodging a second complaint with federal regulators that the billionaire has improperly used corporate resources to advance his presidential ambitions.

Under federal law, corporations cannot contribute money or in-kind services directly to federal candidates.

Charles Spies, who represents the pro-Bush Right to Rise super PAC, points out that one of Trump's corporate lawyers, Michael Cohen, recently told CNN that he would "send a letter very soon on behalf of Mr. Trump" to the person responsible for including a clip of Morocco instead of Mexico in the billionaire's first campaign ad.

"Cohen is not the campaign's attorney or paid by the campaign," Spies wrote. "He is employed solely by the Trump Organization."

"Trump's misuse of his company's corporate employees and resources to defend and aid his political candidacy has rendered the organization and the campaign as virtually indistinguishable entities," Spies added. "It is remarkable that a candidate fixated on erecting walls refuses to establish any semblance of a wall between his company and his presidential campaign."

Trump officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Election lawyers have warned that Trump appears to be crossing the line. Spies last month filed a complaint about the issue with the Federal Election Commission, citing repeated threats by a Trump corporate lawyer to sue political rivals who run negative ads about the front-running Republican candidate.

The commission, which often deadlocks 3-3 along partisan lines, usually does not act on enforcement matters until long after an election. In the past, Trump's camp has defiantly refused to change its practices, saying the corporate lawyers are defending Trump's business brand.

4 RISKIEST POLITICAL ACT OF 2016? PROTESTING AT RALLIES FOR DONALD TRUMP Ashley Parker March 10, 2016 Reprinted from The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/us/politics/riskiest- political-act-of-2016-protesting-at-rallies-for-donald-trump.html?_r=0, last visited April 7, 2016.

When Kashiya Nwanguma learned that Donald J. Trump would campaign in Louisville, Ky., where she is a student, she walked into a FedEx store and printed two colorful signs she had found online, depicting his head on a pig's body.

Then she steeled herself for what has become the most provocative and potentially dangerous recurring act committed by ordinary voters in the 2016 presidential cycle: protesting Mr. Trump inside one of his own rallies.

The moment that Ms. Nwanguma, 21, who is black, held up her signs, Trump supporters ripped them away and began shoving her, screaming racial slurs and calling her "leftist scum," she said in an interview.

"Did I enjoy being treated like trash? No, not at all," she said.

At least she came away unharmed. The same could not be said for Rakeem Jones, 26, a protester who was punched in the face by a Trump supporter on Wednesday as law enforcement officers were leading him out of a campaign rally in Fayetteville, N.C.

"He deserved it," the assailant, John McGraw, told the television program Inside Edition after the confrontation, which was captured on video from several angles. "Next time, we might have to kill him."

Mr. McGraw was charged with assault and battery and disorderly conduct, and the authorities said they were also preparing to charge him with communicating a threat.

As Mr. Trump has unleashed the pent-up fury of economically displaced Americans, a much smaller but equally fervent movement has materialized in response, of people who are determined to shame Mr. Trump publicly, even if it means withstanding hostility, slurs, shouting or violence.

In recent weeks, the demonstrations have intensified, interrupting Mr. Trump time and again, breaking his train of thought and challenging his ability to command the room.

"Can the protesters stop for a couple of seconds so we can talk?" he said after several interruptions in Orlando, Fla., on Saturday.

Such protests are hardly unique to the Trump campaign, but rarely have they been as frequent or as hostile, and few candidates have been as angry in response.

The rancor is so blatant that Mr. Trump was asked about it during the debate on Thursday night in Miami. He said he had not seen the violent episode in Fayetteville, and when asked if he was encouraging his supporters' fury, he said, "I hope not."

5 But he added that some of the protesters were "bad dudes" who were seeking confrontation. The "animosity is like I've never seen before," he told Chris Cuomo of CNN after the debate, "and I hope we can straighten it out."

The tensions between supporters and protesters lately seem to be mirrored by clashes between journalists and Mr. Trump's entourage. A Secret Service agent was seen on camera grabbing a photographer by the throat and throwing him to the ground last month during a protest. And on Tuesday night, in Jupiter, Fla., the Trump campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, roughly yanked the arm of a Breitbart reporter as she tried to ask Mr. Trump about affirmative action, she and another reporter said. (A campaign spokeswoman disputed their account.)

Despite pre-event disclaimers urging peaceable conduct, Mr. Trump's tone often seems to encourage aggression. The candidate has berated security guards for not ejecting protesters quickly enough.

Last year, he suggested that a man wearing a Black Lives Matter shirt who was beaten and kicked may have deserved it. In February, as a protester was being removed from an event in Las Vegas, Mr. Trump said, "I'd like to punch him in the face." And in Fayetteville on Wednesday, as people kept interrupting him, Mr. Trump lamented the "good old days" when, he said, protesters would have been treated more harshly.

Indeed, the disruptions have become as much a fixture of Trump rallies as the chants to "build the wall" and promises to "make America great again" – so routine that aides prepare for them, the candidate anticipates them and his crowds are instructed in how to handle them.

"If a protester starts demonstrating in the area around you, please do not touch or harm the protester," begins a scripted message that precedes all Trump rallies. To quickly alert local law enforcement, the message continues, "please hold a rally sign over your head and start chanting: 'Trump! Trump! Trump!'"

A cat-and-mouse game precedes each Trump appearance. As audiences filter in through security checks, campaign aides scrutinize those in line, trying to spot groups of protesters by their matching shirts or other telling signs. People seen as likely disrupters are often ushered out before Mr. Trump ever takes the stage. People ejected from a rally in Concord, N.C., on Monday included a man in a shirt that read "Fascist Trump," and a group of men and women in black and white shirts who had linked arms.

Perhaps not coincidentally, Mr. Trump has lately started asking his supporters to raise their right hands and pledge their loyalty to him, creating tableaus that critics have likened to the salutes of followers of Hitler and Mussolini.

The response when a protest breaks out can seem almost biological.

Trump supporters typically begin shouting, pointing, jeering – and sometimes kicking or spitting – at the protester, surrounding the offender in a tight circle, like antibodies trying to isolate and expel an unwanted invader from the bloodstream.

In Louisville on March 1, Ms. Nwanguma was shocked by the reaction from Trump supporters, she said in an interview later. A video of the episode shows her clutching her

6 cellphone and pinballing among outstretched, shoving hands. She said she was thinking, "Oh my God, this can't be happening," adding, "I didn't have any way to assign any names to my feelings."

Mr. Trump tries to turn the interruptions to his advantage, showcasing his large crowds and commanding presence, alternately shouting "Get 'em out of here" and "Be nice."

In Concord, he referred to demonstrators as "my friends" and showed flashes of compassion. "Are you O.K., honey? Don't fall," he said, when a protester seemed to stumble.

But six minutes into the event, when another man was led away, raising both middle fingers to the crowd in a show of defiance, Mr. Trump yelled, "Out, out, out!"

"He puts up the wrong finger and we're supposed to take it nowadays, folks," Mr. Trump said. "Pretty sad. Nasty, nasty people."

Still, something is enticing more and more protesters to brave the hostile response.

Maria Alcivar, 27, a student at Iowa State whose family is from Ecuador, helped organize four protests at Trump events in Iowa. At the first, outside a football tailgate party, she said her group's signs were ripped and people shouted.

Now, she said, she and other protesters take safety precautions, meeting in advance to discuss the layout of each venue and agreeing that everyone will leave as a group if one is asked to go.

Ms. Alcivar said she always felt nervous before protesting, fearful of being physically assaulted. But once she begins, she said, Mr. Trump no longer has control over her, or her message.

"Yes, I'm scared and nervous in the moment," she said. "But once I start chanting, I feel superpowerful."

8 HERE IS WHY DONALD TRUMP MIGHT HAVE BROKEN THE LAW Adalia Woodbury Sun, Mar 13th, 2016 Reprinted from Politicus, http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/13/donald-trump-broken-law.html, last visited April 4, 2016.

Trump is within his rights to ask security to remove the person for being disruptive. He is not within his rights to reminisce about the good old days when protesters were carried out on stretchers, given the effect it would have on his audience. He is not within his rights to encourage violence with a nod, a wink and a promise to pick up the legal fees.

Donald Trump has a long history of capitalizing on hatred be it directed toward women, racial and religious minorities or people who recognize demagoguery when they see it.

Whether he was motivated by ratings for his reality show or proving he is sufficiently hateful to qualify as a conservative Republican, Trump knew his objective and what hate filled messages to spew to meet that objective.

During his campaign, Trump proved more adept at flip-flopping on the issues than 2012 candidate Mitt Romney. One constant feature of the Trump campaign is the hatred that lures racists who are mostly Republican, mostly white, mostly male and mostly "poorly educated." Another constant feature is his propensity to incite violence – which can be a criminal act if it fits the criteria set out in Brandenburg v. Ohio. The speech must have the intent and likelihood of causing imminent violence.

As repugnant as Trump's hate filled rhetoric is, hate speech is protected under the first amendment until "it is advocacy directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." That's the standard set in Brandenberg v. Ohio.

As Jason Easley pointed out, Rachel Maddow chronicled several occasions that Trump encouraged his supports [sic] to assault protesters and assured them he would pay the legal fees.

In plain English, the Constitution protects Trump when he spews hatred. It doesn't necessarily protect him when he encourages his supporters to attack protesters. It comes down to intent and if his comments can result in imminent harm. Trump's assurances that he would pay the legal fees, at minimum, prove he knew he was instructing his followers to break the law or at least that his rhetoric was likely to produce such actions. The problem is the law distinguishes between knowing something will happen and intending to make that thing happen.

Given that the incitements incrementally became a standard feature at Trump's political events, arguably his very presence incites violence on the part of his supporters.

It comes as no surprise that Trump (and other Republican candidates) tried to deflect responsibility for the violence that occurred in Chicago. On Fox, Trump tried to float the idea that anti-Trump protesters "shut down" Trump's first amendment rights.

9 His son, Donald Jr. tried to convey the same message in a tweet.

Liberals love the first amendment until you say something they don't agree with. — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) March 12, 2016

This claim reaffirms Trump's ignorance on so many levels, beginning with the fact that the first amendment limits government actions resulting in restrictions on people's speech. Opponents of Trump's message are not "the government" by any interpretation.

Carrying a sign protesting Trump's message is speech, not violence. He may not like it, and it may not play well to the media that regularly streams his events as "live news." The fact remains protesting a political candidate's message is one of the many forms of speech protected under the first amendment.

There is a point, that protesting becomes "disruptive" such as by shouting down the speaker, even if he is saying vile things. And with Trump, that's a given. Trump is within his rights to ask security to remove the person for being disruptive. He is not within his rights to reminisce about the good old days when protesters were carried out on stretchers, given the effect it would have on his audience. He is not within his rights to encourage violence with a nod, a wink and a promise to pick up the legal fees.

Since violence has occurred on a regular basis at Trump rallies, the smart man that Trump says he is should have a reasonable expectation that his supporters don't need much encouragement to assault protesters.

10 HOW 2016ers ARE BREAKING THE LAW AND GETTING AWAY WITH IT Paul S. Ryan March 24, 2015 Reprinted from Politico Magazine, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/2016- candidates-campaign-finance-law-116331, last visited April 7, 2016.

Sen. Ted Cruz's official launch of a campaign makes him the first and only formally declared candidate in the 2016 presidential election. Yet it's clear to almost everyone that a campaign has been well underway for months. Reporters have been frantically covering the horse race, but until Cruz's announcement every single one of the horses denied they were racing. Stories are being written daily about a dozen or so Republicans and a couple of Democrats who have publicly expressed interest in being their party's nominee for president in 2016. They're reportedly lining up staff for a campaign, traveling to such random places as Iowa and New Hampshire, giving speeches about what they would do if elected, meeting with wealthy donors and fundraising for political committees that, just by coincidence, they or their supporters recently created.

For example, in late January Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker had formed a committee "in preparation for 2016 presidential bid" and soon thereafter opened an office in Iowa. Also in January, Jeb Bush set up a traditional PAC and a super PAC. Earlier this month it was reported that Bush's super PAC fundraising was going too well, prompting his camp to make an unusual request of his wealthy supporters: Limit your contributions to $1 million each this quarter. And Bush has spent time this month politicking in Iowa, along with numerous other presidential hopefuls. And though Hillary Clinton, without notable competition for the Democratic Party's nomination, has had the luxury of laying low in recent months, she has reportedly begun hiring presidential campaign staff, including political directors for the early primary states of New Hampshire and South Carolina.

To listen to Bush, Clinton, Walker and other road show companions like Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina and even Donald Trump, not only are they not candidates, they claim they are not even "testing the waters" of candidacy. In legal parlance, "testing the waters" means engaging in activity for the purpose of determining whether to run for office.

Why do Bush, Clinton and nearly every other prospective 2016 candidate refuse to acknowledge that they are even "testing the waters" of a presidential campaign? Because money spent to test the waters of a federal campaign must be raised under the $2,700 candidate contribution limit – and nearly every prospective candidate is raising funds outside the limit, sometimes even far outside that limit.

So why is the press allowing them to get away with this apparent fiction? As reporters cover the daily activities of these nascent presidential campaigns, they're ignoring what should be a major story. Any prospective presidential candidate who's paying for testing- the-waters activities with funds raised outside the $2,700 per donor candidate limit is violating federal law. Isn't this worth a mention in the stories about Bush's self-imposed $1 million contribution limit for the quarter?

Have prospective candidates flouted the rules about when the candidate contribution limits kick in during past cycles and gotten away with it? Yes, though not so blatantly.

11 But the simple fact that people regularly get away with violating the law doesn't justify the violations – and it doesn't justify the lack of news coverage of such violations. In my recently published paper on this topic, "'Testing the Waters' and the Big Lie," I explain the corruption-preventing importance of the $2,700 candidate contribution limit, the history of prospective presidential candidates evading the limit, and how nearly every prospective 2016 presidential candidate is also getting away with evading the limit. The candidate contribution limit was enacted in the wake of the Watergate scandal; Ronald Reagan became the first presidential candidate to evade it when he set up the Citizens for the Republic PAC in 1977 and used it to lay the foundation of his successful 1980 presidential campaign. But whereas Reagan's PAC was raising funds under a $5,000 contribution limit and ostensibly focused its activities on the 1978 midterm elections, Bush's super PAC is reportedly receiving million-dollar contributions and will be spending them in the 2016 presidential election. These differences between the 2016 cycle and past cycles are not merely differences in degree; they are differences in kind.

Every reporter on the campaign trail should be sticking a microphone or a pocket recorder in the face of prospective candidates and asking them, point blank, whether they are "testing the waters" of a presidential run – i.e., whether they are spending any money in the process of determining whether to run. If they deny that they are "testing the waters" of candidacy, that absurdity alone warrants reporting. And if they acknowledge that they are "testing the waters," they should be asked about their fundraising above the $2,700 candidate limit and whether they are complying with federal campaign finance laws.

A little honesty is not too much to ask of individuals seeking to become our next president. If these prospective candidates are willing to lie about their aspirations for our nation's highest elective office, what are they capable of doing once they hold that office? The stakes are high, and it is time for the public and the media to hold these would-be presidents accountable. It is time to end this tired charade.

12 EXCLUSIVE: BERNIE SANDERS ALLEGEDLY BROKE FEDERAL ELECTION LAW, USED FOREIGN STAFFERS IN SEVERAL STATES Adelle Nazarian 25 Mar 2016 Reprinted from BreitBart News, http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/25/exclusive- bernie-sanders-allegedly-broke-federal-election-law-used-foreign-staffers-in-several-states/, last visited April 7, 2016.

The campaign run by Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is accused of breaking federal election law by accepting thousands of dollars in illicit donations from a foreign political party which sought to influence the results of an American election.

Breitbart News exclusively acquired a complaint filed by Rep. William O'Brien (R-NH) against the self-described Democratic Socialist's 2016 presidential campaign.

The complaint names the Australian Labor Party – a group that espouses socialist principles and policies similar to those Sanders supports – and says both violated the Federal Elections Campaign Act (FECA) and the commission's regulations, by accepting, making and/or receiving prohibited foreign contributions.

The evidence easily indicates more than $10,000 of in-kind contributions to Bernie 2016 in New Hampshire alone, and hints that similar financial outlays were made by ALP in several other state primaries. By all reasonable accounts and calculations, Bernie 2016 is responsible for accepting – or at least receiving – tens of thousands of dollars in foreign in-kind contributions. And the ALP is responsible for prohibited intervention in a federal election.

The discovery that workers with the ALP were financed by their own socialist democratic party to work on Bernie's 2016 presidential campaign was made by the Project Veritas Action Fund.

Last month, several recordings of conversations with Sanders campaigners were exposed in a report from the Project Veritas Action Fund that featured these Australian nationals. At that time, three quarters of them were employed with the ALP. They're quoted saying they've been stealing political yard signs and had replaced Hillary Clinton campaign literature with Sanders literature.

These foreign "volunteers" were deployed to Nevada, New York, New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and another state to carry out illicit acts on behalf of the Sanders campaign and were paid by their own party to do this.

"Voters in New Hampshire and, indeed, the nation require that their right to choose a president not be sold to foreign bidders," the complaint notes.

FECA states that "a foreign national, directly or indirectly," cannot lawfully "make a contribution or donation of money or thing or value … in connection with a Federal, State or local election." It also states that it is unlawful for "a person to solicit, accept or receive a contribution or donation … from a foreign national." The money that was expended by

13 the ALP for travel, housing and food to and in New Hampshire for the purpose of "volunteering" for Bernie 2016 are all prohibited contributions under FECA.

Sanders has consistently made the rallying cry against the corruption inherent in the Democratic Establishment and the Clinton and Obama camps the guise of his "political revolution." It turns out, he is not so different from the politicians he criticizes. In a press release he issued on filing a complaint with the FEC against the ALP and the Bernie 2016 presidential campaign, O'Brien writes "There is a long tradition in the Democrat Party of trading away American sovereignty for campaign contributions."

O'Brien noted that findings by the Project Veritas Action Fund show that Bernie 2016 has now introduced "a new wrinkle to this now well-established Democrat practice of foreign support of their presidential campaigns." He notes that "under Bill Clinton, intelligence information showed that the Chinese mainland government funneled illegal contributions to the Democratic National Committee."

And that President Barack Obama, who was at the time a junior Illinois senator seeking the nation's highest office, "had turned repeatedly to the world outside the United States for contributions to his presidential campaign." The findings came shortly after Obama had delivered a controversial 2008 speech in Berlin, Germany in which he described himself as a "citizen of the world." His foreign policy has arguably proven to be a reflection of that post-national priority.

The Sanders campaign has not yet responded to Breitbart News inquiries about this matter.